CargoAdmin, Bureaucrats, Moderators (CommentStreams), fileuploaders, Interface administrators, newuser, Push subscription managers, Suppressors, Administrators
5,236
edits
The Washington Post: Difference between revisions
m
Text replacement - "The Guardian" to "The Guardian"
m (Text replacement - "Associated Press" to "Associated Press") Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
m (Text replacement - "The Guardian" to "The Guardian") |
||
| Line 159: | Line 159: | ||
Since 2011, the ''Post'' has been running a column called "The Fact Checker" that the ''Post'' describes as a "truth squad".<ref name="About the Fact Checker">Glenn Kessler (January 1, 2017), [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/07/about-fact-checker/ "About the Fact Checker"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190306013444/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/07/about-fact-checker/ |date=March 6, 2019 }}, ''The Washington Post''</ref> The Fact Checker received a $250,000 grant from [[Google News Initiative]]/YouTube to expand production of video [[fact-checking|fact checks]].<ref name="About the Fact Checker" /> | Since 2011, the ''Post'' has been running a column called "The Fact Checker" that the ''Post'' describes as a "truth squad".<ref name="About the Fact Checker">Glenn Kessler (January 1, 2017), [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/07/about-fact-checker/ "About the Fact Checker"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190306013444/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/07/about-fact-checker/ |date=March 6, 2019 }}, ''The Washington Post''</ref> The Fact Checker received a $250,000 grant from [[Google News Initiative]]/YouTube to expand production of video [[fact-checking|fact checks]].<ref name="About the Fact Checker" /> | ||
In mid-September 2016, Matthew Ingram of ''[[Forbes]]'' joined [[Glenn Greenwald]] of ''[[The Intercept]]'', and Trevor Timm of '' | In mid-September 2016, Matthew Ingram of ''[[Forbes]]'' joined [[Glenn Greenwald]] of ''[[The Intercept]]'', and Trevor Timm of ''The Guardian'' in criticizing ''The Washington Post'' for "demanding that [former National Security Agency contractor Edward] Snowden ... stand trial on espionage charges".<ref>{{cite web|author=Glenn Greenwald|date=September 18, 2016|website=The Intercept|url=https://theintercept.com/2016/09/18/washpost-makes-history-first-paper-to-call-for-prosecution-of-its-own-source-after-accepting-pulitzer/|title=WashPost Makes History: First Paper to Call for Prosecution of Its Own Source (After Accepting Pulitzer)|access-date=October 9, 2016|archive-date=November 10, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161110182839/https://theintercept.com/2016/09/18/washpost-makes-history-first-paper-to-call-for-prosecution-of-its-own-source-after-accepting-pulitzer/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Ingram|first1=Matthew|title=Here's Why The Washington Post Is Wrong About Edward Snowden|url=https://fortune.com/2016/09/19/washington-post-snowden/ |url-access=subscription |date=September 19, 2016 |website=Fortune |access-date=October 9, 2016|archive-date=October 11, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161011193529/http://fortune.com/2016/09/19/washington-post-snowden/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Disis|first1=Jill|url=https://money.cnn.com/2016/09/18/media/washington-post-criticism-snowden-pardon/ |website=CNN Business |title=Washington Post criticized for opposing Snowden pardon|date=September 18, 2016|access-date=August 3, 2020|archive-date=May 27, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200527004403/https://money.cnn.com/2016/09/18/media/washington-post-criticism-snowden-pardon/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Trimm|first1=Trevor|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/19/washington-post-wrong-edward-snowden-pardon|title=The Washington Post is wrong: Edward Snowden should be pardoned|website=[[TheGuardian.com]]|date=September 19, 2016|access-date=October 9, 2016|archive-date=October 22, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161022102758/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/19/washington-post-wrong-edward-snowden-pardon|url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
In February 2017, the ''Post'' adopted the slogan "[[Democracy Dies in Darkness]]" for its masthead.<ref name="OldSaying">{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-washington-posts-new-slogan-turns-out-to-be-an-old-saying/2017/02/23/cb199cda-fa02-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html|title=The Washington Post's new slogan turns out to be an old saying|last=Farhi|first=Paul|date=February 23, 2017|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=February 26, 2017|archive-date=January 11, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200111001213/https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-washington-posts-new-slogan-turns-out-to-be-an-old-saying/2017/02/23/cb199cda-fa02-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html|url-status=live}}</ref> | In February 2017, the ''Post'' adopted the slogan "[[Democracy Dies in Darkness]]" for its masthead.<ref name="OldSaying">{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-washington-posts-new-slogan-turns-out-to-be-an-old-saying/2017/02/23/cb199cda-fa02-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html|title=The Washington Post's new slogan turns out to be an old saying|last=Farhi|first=Paul|date=February 23, 2017|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=February 26, 2017|archive-date=January 11, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200111001213/https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-washington-posts-new-slogan-turns-out-to-be-an-old-saying/2017/02/23/cb199cda-fa02-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html|url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
| Line 194: | Line 194: | ||
=== ''China Daily'' advertising supplements === | === ''China Daily'' advertising supplements === | ||
{{Further|China Daily}} | {{Further|China Daily}} | ||
Dating back to 2011, ''The Washington Post'' began to include "China Watch" advertising supplements provided by ''[[China Daily]]'', an English language newspaper owned by the [[Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party]], on the print and online editions. Although the header to the online "China Watch" section included the text "A Paid Supplement to The Washington Post", [[James Fallows]] of ''[[The Atlantic]]'' suggested that the notice was not clear enough for most readers to see.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/official-chinese-propaganda-now-online-from-the-wapo/70690/|title=Official Chinese Propaganda: Now Online from the WaPo!|last=Fallows|first=James|work=The Atlantic|date=February 3, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110207020433/https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/official-chinese-propaganda-now-online-from-the-wapo/70690/|archive-date=February 7, 2011|url-status=live}}</ref> Distributed to the ''Post'' and multiple newspapers around the world, the "China Watch" advertising supplements range from four to eight pages and appear at least monthly. According to a 2018 report by '' | Dating back to 2011, ''The Washington Post'' began to include "China Watch" advertising supplements provided by ''[[China Daily]]'', an English language newspaper owned by the [[Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party]], on the print and online editions. Although the header to the online "China Watch" section included the text "A Paid Supplement to The Washington Post", [[James Fallows]] of ''[[The Atlantic]]'' suggested that the notice was not clear enough for most readers to see.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/official-chinese-propaganda-now-online-from-the-wapo/70690/|title=Official Chinese Propaganda: Now Online from the WaPo!|last=Fallows|first=James|work=The Atlantic|date=February 3, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110207020433/https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/official-chinese-propaganda-now-online-from-the-wapo/70690/|archive-date=February 7, 2011|url-status=live}}</ref> Distributed to the ''Post'' and multiple newspapers around the world, the "China Watch" advertising supplements range from four to eight pages and appear at least monthly. According to a 2018 report by ''The Guardian'', "China Watch" uses "a didactic, old-school approach to propaganda."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/07/china-plan-for-global-media-dominance-propaganda-xi-jinping|title=Inside China's audacious global propaganda campaign|last1=Lim|first1=Louisa|last2=Bergin|first2=Julia|work=The Guardian|date=December 7, 2018|access-date=March 21, 2020|archive-date=March 10, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200310193251/https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/07/china-plan-for-global-media-dominance-propaganda-xi-jinping|url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
In 2020, a report by [[Freedom House]], titled "Beijing's Global Megaphone", criticized the ''Post'' and other newspapers for distributing "China Watch".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-report/2020/beijings-global-megaphone|title=Beijing's Global Megaphone|last=Cook|first=Sarah|publisher=Freedom House|access-date=March 21, 2020|archive-date=March 21, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200321225216/https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-report/2020/beijings-global-megaphone|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-is-waging-an-aggressive-propaganda-campaign-to-distort-media-landscape-report-warns/2020/01/15/30fd4d58-374a-11ea-a1ff-c48c1d59a4a1_story.html|title=China is waging a global propaganda war to silence critics abroad, report warns|last=Fifield|first=Anna|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=January 15, 2020|access-date=March 21, 2020|archive-date=October 27, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201027022601/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-is-waging-an-aggressive-propaganda-campaign-to-distort-media-landscape-report-warns/2020/01/15/30fd4d58-374a-11ea-a1ff-c48c1d59a4a1_story.html|url-status=live}}</ref> In the same year, 35 Republican members of the U.S. Congress wrote a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice in February 2020 calling for an investigation of potential [[Foreign Agents Registration Act|FARA]] violations by ''China Daily''.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3049627/us-lawmakers-push-justice-department-investigate-china-daily|title=US lawmakers push Justice Department to investigate China Daily, label the newspaper a foreign agent|last=Magnier|first=Mark|work=South China Morning Post|date=February 8, 2020|access-date=March 21, 2020|archive-date=August 11, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200811204030/https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3049627/us-lawmakers-push-justice-department-investigate-china-daily|url-status=live}}</ref> The letter named an article that appeared in the ''Post'', "Education Flaws Linked to Hong Kong Unrest", as an example of "articles [that] serve as cover for China's atrocities, including ... its support for the [[2019–20 Hong Kong protests#Mainland China reactions|crackdown in Hong Kong]]."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.rubio.senate.gov/rubio-joins-cotton-banks-colleagues-in-urging-doj-to-investigate-china-daily/|title=Rubio Joins Cotton, Banks, Colleagues in Urging DOJ to Investigate China Daily|publisher=Office of U.S. Senator Marco Rubio|access-date=March 21, 2020|date=February 7, 2020|archive-date=March 22, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200322053509/https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/2/rubio-joins-cotton-banks-colleagues-in-urging-doj-to-investigate-china-daily|url-status=live}}</ref> According to ''The Guardian,'' the ''Post'' had already stopped running "China Watch" in 2019.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Waterson|first1=Jim|last2=Jones|first2=Dean Sterling|date=April 14, 2020|title=Daily Telegraph stops publishing section paid for by China|language=en-GB|work=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/apr/14/daily-telegraph-stops-publishing-section-paid-for-by-china|issn=0261-3077|access-date=November 23, 2020|archive-date=April 15, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200415012159/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/apr/14/daily-telegraph-stops-publishing-section-paid-for-by-china|url-status=live}}</ref> | In 2020, a report by [[Freedom House]], titled "Beijing's Global Megaphone", criticized the ''Post'' and other newspapers for distributing "China Watch".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-report/2020/beijings-global-megaphone|title=Beijing's Global Megaphone|last=Cook|first=Sarah|publisher=Freedom House|access-date=March 21, 2020|archive-date=March 21, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200321225216/https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-report/2020/beijings-global-megaphone|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-is-waging-an-aggressive-propaganda-campaign-to-distort-media-landscape-report-warns/2020/01/15/30fd4d58-374a-11ea-a1ff-c48c1d59a4a1_story.html|title=China is waging a global propaganda war to silence critics abroad, report warns|last=Fifield|first=Anna|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=January 15, 2020|access-date=March 21, 2020|archive-date=October 27, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201027022601/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-is-waging-an-aggressive-propaganda-campaign-to-distort-media-landscape-report-warns/2020/01/15/30fd4d58-374a-11ea-a1ff-c48c1d59a4a1_story.html|url-status=live}}</ref> In the same year, 35 Republican members of the U.S. Congress wrote a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice in February 2020 calling for an investigation of potential [[Foreign Agents Registration Act|FARA]] violations by ''China Daily''.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3049627/us-lawmakers-push-justice-department-investigate-china-daily|title=US lawmakers push Justice Department to investigate China Daily, label the newspaper a foreign agent|last=Magnier|first=Mark|work=South China Morning Post|date=February 8, 2020|access-date=March 21, 2020|archive-date=August 11, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200811204030/https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3049627/us-lawmakers-push-justice-department-investigate-china-daily|url-status=live}}</ref> The letter named an article that appeared in the ''Post'', "Education Flaws Linked to Hong Kong Unrest", as an example of "articles [that] serve as cover for China's atrocities, including ... its support for the [[2019–20 Hong Kong protests#Mainland China reactions|crackdown in Hong Kong]]."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.rubio.senate.gov/rubio-joins-cotton-banks-colleagues-in-urging-doj-to-investigate-china-daily/|title=Rubio Joins Cotton, Banks, Colleagues in Urging DOJ to Investigate China Daily|publisher=Office of U.S. Senator Marco Rubio|access-date=March 21, 2020|date=February 7, 2020|archive-date=March 22, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200322053509/https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/2/rubio-joins-cotton-banks-colleagues-in-urging-doj-to-investigate-china-daily|url-status=live}}</ref> According to ''The Guardian,'' the ''Post'' had already stopped running "China Watch" in 2019.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Waterson|first1=Jim|last2=Jones|first2=Dean Sterling|date=April 14, 2020|title=Daily Telegraph stops publishing section paid for by China|language=en-GB|work=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/apr/14/daily-telegraph-stops-publishing-section-paid-for-by-china|issn=0261-3077|access-date=November 23, 2020|archive-date=April 15, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200415012159/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/apr/14/daily-telegraph-stops-publishing-section-paid-for-by-china|url-status=live}}</ref> | ||